I been using ImageOptim but I think it takes too much out of an image so I wanted to try Squash out to make comparison before buying. I downloaded the demo and toss an image in it. It showed the animated clamp then a few second later an button “Save Image” appear but nowhere I see a new image file with -squashed appended to it.

TinyPNG has a photoshop plugin. I haven’t actually tried it yet but that seems to do the best compression for me.
Edit: Never mind for some reason I thought it was free but it is $50 https://tinypng.com/photoshop

Anyhow, so far Photoshop “save to web” seem to produce the smallest file without sacrificing too much image quality. ImageOtim was the worse for me.

I usually use either Photoshop or GraphicConverter to resize/optimize my images. I like being able to see how the compression will affect the way the images look. On some images, I can increase the compression and still get good visual results.

I then also run those resulting images through ImageOptim with the “Enable lossy minification” unchecked under the Quality settings. ImageOptim will then only try compressing with lossless algorithms. I usually see an additional 5-10% reduction in file size just using the lossless compression.

Anyhow, so far Photoshop “save to web” seem to produce the smallest file without sacrificing too much image quality. ImageOtim was the worse for me.

I usually use either Photoshop or GraphicConverter to resize/optimize my images. I like being able to see how the compression will affect the way the images look. On some images, I can increase the compression and still get good visual results.

I then also run those resulting images through ImageOptim with the “Enable lossy minification” unchecked under the Quality settings. ImageOptim will then only try compressing with lossless algorithms. I usually see an additional 5-10% reduction in file size just using the lossless compression.

Here the comparison between the two images. Top one was saved using Photoshop save as web and the bottom one was compressed using ImageOptim with lossy minification unchecked.

You will notice that the one at the bottom using ImageOptim have lost its’ “crispness” in its’ color and more darker than the photoshop one at top.

It’s not really that ImageOptim is doing a crappy job at compressing. It’s more that it’s stripping out the embedded color profile. The top photo has a “ProPhoto RGB” color profile embedded. ImageOptim strips it out while producing the lower image. Because it strips it out without converting the image’s color space, you get the results you see.

While browser support has gotten better, not all browsers on all platforms handle embedded color profiles correctly. When they don’t they will see the top image appear identical to the lower one.

It’s a good idea to covert any images for use on the web to the sRGB color profile. This eliminates the need to embed a profile, and it helps ensure the image is displayed correctly for all users.

Btw, that first image includes a lot of EXIF data (names, dates, locations, etc.) that are stripped by ImageOptim. If you don’t want to use it for compressing images, I would still use another utility to strip the EXIF info.

It’s not really that ImageOptim is doing a crappy job at compressing. It’s more that it’s stripping out the embedded color profile. The top photo has a “ProPhoto RGB” color profile embedded. ImageOptim strips it out while producing the lower image. Because it strips it out without converting the image’s color space, you get the results you see.

While browser support has gotten better, not all browsers on all platforms handle embedded color profiles correctly. When they don’t they will see the top image appear identical to the lower one.

It’s a good idea to covert any images for use on the web to the sRGB color profile. This eliminates the need to embed a profile, and it helps ensure the image is displayed correctly for all users.

Btw, that first image includes a lot of EXIF data (names, dates, locations, etc.) that are stripped by ImageOptim. If you don’t want to use it for compressing images, I would still use another utility to strip the EXIF info.

Interesting results. It looks like the file size when saved out of Photoshop as sRGB is larger than the initial Photoshop version. Did you use the same quality (8) setting?

I don’t see much difference between those last three images. They all look fine for web use, including the one that has some lossy compression applied. That image looks to be about 15% smaller than the original (top) image.